Why do combined authorities use the franchise model?

[Simon75]

Why do combined authorities like Greater Manchester and London, use the franchise model rather than just 1 company operate all bus services?

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Why would they? Even in the days of PTEs having their own operator other operators still provided services extending all the way to the city centres. The free market model of deregulation may have lost credibility now but that doesn't mean there is support, whether from full-time politicians or the electorate more generally, for the creation of monopolies controlled solely by politicians or their appointees.

 

[gc4946]

The Bus Services Act 2017 "provides for combined authorities to partially re-regulate bus services by creating franchise schemes similar to the one operated by Transport for London. It, however, prohibits local authorities from reversing complete deregulation" (source: Wikipedia).

The Bus Services Bill currently going through Parliament will lift the ban on local authorities establishing their own bus companies https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...egislation-to-boost-local-control-of-services

 

[mangad]

Why would they? Even in the days of PTEs having their own operator other operators still provided services extending all the way to the city centres. The free market model of deregulation may have lost credibility now but that doesn't mean there is support, whether from full-time politicians or the electorate more generally, for the creation of monopolies controlled solely by politicians or their appointees.

Of course cross border services mean you'll never get only one company in an area. But PTEs didn't have the benefit of being able to take over all services in their area, did they? If they wanted to take over another operator, they had to do a deal and get the cheque book out and have a willing seller. In Greater Manchester, Lancashire United sold up, but Mayne resisted all attempts and remained running under the agreements they'd made with Manchester City Council pre PTE.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Feb 2025 ==

Why do combined authorities like Greater Manchester and London, use the franchise model rather than just 1 company operate all bus services?

London's a different system. All the depots were sold off, and TfL tender services out. That's basically how it was set up by the then Conservative government, and that's the system that the Mayor inherited. TfL did directly own one operator, East Thames, but Boris Johnson sold it off.

And there's ultimately your answer. It comes down to politics, and the beliefs of those in power. The Conservatives wanted the private sector running things, hence selling off the PTE operations, London buses and the NBC companies. And also why they banned new municipal bus companies recently. Labour are less fussed hence why they're changing things so new public operators can be created. But, of course, there's nothing to say things won't get changed back in the future. New publicly owned companies may well find themselves sold via government dictact in the future!

 

[Dwarfer1979]

Why do combined authorities like Greater Manchester and London, use the franchise model rather than just 1 company operate all bus services?

If one were being cynical, to save money. If they wanted to take over with a directly owned business, once the legislation is passed to allow it so it was never an option for Manchester to go that way, they would have to buy the operators as going concerns for millions of pounds (including intangible assets such as goodwill) but by franchising they don't actually have to pay for anything if they don't want to (though most seem to at least be prepared to buy some fixed assets but Manchesters set up costs were probably half what they would have been if they had actually had to buy the business they took over rather than just remove their right to operate without compensation). If they then wanted to directly operate in the future then you just don't re-tender at the end of the first term and you take over the operations for the book cost of whatever assets you hadn't bought during the franchise term which has also helped spread the set up costs of a new operator. Probably unfairly cynical but it would work in theory even if no one in the CA's are actually that Machiavellian.